Plaintiff alleges that Defendantsimproperly changed the terms of his home mortgage loan, and failed to respond to complaint letterswritten by his counsel about this change. On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiff alleges threecauses of action: violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”, 12 U.S.C. §2601

.).Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary denial of all Plaintiff’s claims (Dkt.No. 49, Motion). The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument.

See

Civ.

1

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the other named defendants.

See

Dkt. No. 48.

Case5:09-cv-02415-LHK Document59 Filed04/11/11 Page1 of 15

2Case No.: 10-CV-02415-LHKORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SUMMARY JUDGMENT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt

FortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia

L.R. 7-1(b). Therefore, the April 14, 2011 hearing on this Motion is VACATED. For the reasonsset forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.I.

IntroductionPlaintiff initially filed a complaint asserting only California law claims in Santa ClaraCounty Superior Court on January 24, 2008. Dkt. No. 1. The matter was removed to this Court onJune 1, 2009, after the Plaintiff added claims arising under federal law in his Third AmendedComplaint (the RESPA, TILA, and a UCL claim based on these alleged violations).

Id

.Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Judge Ware, to whom this case waspreviously assigned, dismissed the federal claims but granted Plaintiff leave to amend those claims.

See

Dkt. No. 17. In dismissing the claims, Judge Ware found that Plaintiff had not sufficientlyalleged that he made a Qualified Written Request (QWR) under RESPA, and that his pleadings didnot establish a basis for equitably tolling his claim for TILA damages (which was otherwise barredby the one-year statute of limitations).

Id

.Plaintiff then filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (4AC). Defendants moved to dismiss allof the asserted claims other than the TILA claim. This time, Judge Ware denied the Motion toDismiss regarding the federal claims.

. at 5-6. In the same Order, Judge Ware dismissed all of the state law causesof action, finding that Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to state those claims.Accordingly, the remaining causes of action after the February 5, 2010 Order were Plaintiff’sRESPA and TILA claims, and the UCL claim based on the underlying RESPA and TILA claims.Defendants timely filed this Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff’s three remaining claims.Plaintiff did not timely file his Opposition; however, the Court granted a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Opposition.

See

Dkt. No. 54. Plaintiff filed his Opposition within the extendedtime. Defendants then filed a Reply.

2

The California law claims, other than the UCL claim premised on the alleged RESPA violation,were all dismissed with prejudice.

Case5:09-cv-02415-LHK Document59 Filed04/11/11 Page2 of 15

3Case No.: 10-CV-02415-LHKORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SUMMARY JUDGMENT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

. The Note secures a Deed of Trust (Deed), also executed on November 1, 2006, and recordedagainst the Quady Lane property.

Id

. at Ex. 2 (Deed). In the negotiations relating to the Note,Plaintiff had discussions with certain real estate agents, but had no contact with either of theDefendants. Talbot Decl. Exs. B-E. Plaintiff did not read the loan documents before he signedthem, instead relying on representations about the terms of the loan made by the real estate agents.Talbot Decl. Ex. A, 31:11-32:5;

see also

Opp’n at 18.The loan documents include a number of different forms, all of which were signed byPlaintiff on November 1, 2006. The Note itself states that the initial interest rate on the loan is 1%,but that this interest rate can change beginning on January 1, 2007.

See

Note ¶ 2. The Note statesthat the principal amount of the loan may change, but will never exceed 110% of the originalprincipal. Note ¶ 1. Elsewhere, however, it states that the principal may exceed 110% if theborrower makes only minimum payments and if the interest rate increases; in this event, a newminimum payment sufficient to repay the unpaid principal based on the interest rate in effectduring the prior month will apply. Note ¶ 3(F). The Note states that the initial monthly paymentswill be $711.54, but that these payments may change starting January 1, 2008, and every twelfthmonth thereafter, and may change sooner if the principal exceeds 110%. Note ¶ 3. The Notefurther states that Plaintiff will be billed for various different so-called “payment options,” whichbecome applicable after January 1, 2007. Note ¶ 3. Four types of payment options are defined: 1)Minimum Payment (which will not decrease the principal, and could result in a principal decreaseif it is insufficient to pay the current interest due); 2) Interest Only Payment (which will coverinterest, but will not decrease the principal; 3) 30-year Amortized Payment (which will pay off theprincipal and interest in substantially equal payments by the maturity date; and 4) 15-yearAmortized Payment (which will pay off the principal and interest in substantially equal amountswithin a fifteen year term).